Searching for proof of God/Islam - Tell me why I'm wrong

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Your response to him could be summed up as "your arguments against Muhammad ans Islam are wrong because people have been arguing against Muhammad and Islam for over a thousand years".

I don't understand what type of counter argument that is.

Yeah, for real.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I dont really get what you're doing here. The poster you're responding to advanced a number of logical arguments.
Your response to him could be summed up as "your arguments against Muhammad ans Islam are wrong because people have been arguing against Muhammad and Islam for over a thousand years".

I don't understand what type of counter argument that is.

Just questioning the source of this persons knowledge about Muhammad and the Quran. Please give a source. The sources that have been trusted by the west for centuries are not credible.

Misinformation is rife about Muhammad. People have not been exposed to correct information or very rarely so they should question where they got these ideas about Muhammad.

 

[McBell]

Misinformation is rife about Muhammad. People have not been exposed to correct information or very rarely so they should question where they got these ideas about Muhammad.

It would be helpful if you could get Muslims to come to some sort of consensus...

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Your sources of your knowledge of Islam and Muhammad no doubt come from biased western propaganda.

You are just repeating what the enemies of Islam say. Biased sources of information are never trustworthy or reliable.

Incorrect. I use Muslim sources such as this one and Quran verses such as:
2:216 "Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."
and 8:34 - 8:39 "
But why should Allah not punish them while they obstruct [people] from al-Masjid al- Haram and they were not [fit to be] its guardians? Its [true] guardians are not but the righteous, but most of them do not know.
And their prayer at the House was not except whistling and handclapping. So taste the punishment for what you disbelieved.
Indeed, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert [people] from the way of Allah . So they will spend it; then it will be for them a [source of] regret; then they will be overcome. And those who have disbelieved - unto Hell they will be gathered.
[This is] so that Allah may distinguish the wicked from the good and place the wicked some of them upon others and heap them all together and put them into Hell. It is those who are the losers.
Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] - then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do."

The latter quote in particular references the fact that the Quraysh blocked access to the Ka'aba for Muhammad's followers

You only quote your bias not two sides of the story. There is another side of this story. That Muhammad was indeed a Prophet of God prophesied by Christ Himself and that He never sinned but you don't want to hear that side of the story. You only want to promote your own bias.

I know Who Muhammad was and what He did and it was all good.

Really? You know who Muhammad was? Have you met him in person; face-to-face? No? Didn't think so. If you know who Muhammad is because Muslim sources have told you then so do I; because Muslim sources told me. He was a warlord and religious fanatic who would stop at nothing to make sure his beliefs trumped everyone else's. Of course I harbour my own bias - it's called my side of the argument. Accusations of bias are more than a bit rich from someone who presupposes that Muhammad is perfect and is willing to ignore Muslim sources that show him as a conqueror with a lack of tolerance for others' beliefs.

Muhammad never lowers the station of Jesus that's the biased side of your story that Christians want people to believe. That's the brainwashing that goes on.

Yes he does. Before Muhammad, Jesus was the saviour sent to redeem all of humankind. Muhammad relegates him to a mere prophet sent only to the Jews.

People have been so brainwashed over the centuries and by the media that even when we present them the truth they scoff and treat it as a lie.

You're right but I understand that it's blind devotion to Bahai dogma that keeps you from seeing Muhammad as a warlord.

I'm a Baha'i. Not a Muslim, yet even I know the truth about Muhammad. It's a real pity westerners swallow propaganda so easily. I'm a westerner too. But I don't fall for the anti-Islamic rubbish because that's what it is - rubbish and brainwashing against a true Prophet of God.

No, it isn't. If Muhammad is a perfect man and a holy prophet of God, why do you ignore his proclamation that he would be the last prophet before the Mahdi?

Propaganda?

• Muslim sources admit Muhammad raised armies and conquered cities.
• Muslim sources admit Muhammad converted cities to Islam under threat of military conquest.
• Muslim sources admit Muhammad married and had sex with a child.
• Muslims believe Muhammad as a moral exemplar that Muslims should try to emulate.

If it's propaganda, I'm not getting it from where you have assumed I'm getting it from.

The information westerners have relied upon for centuries about Muhammad has been lies and bias.

With the advent of the Internet and the Age of Information, we don't need to rely on that now.

As an example; for nearly a century Sir William Muir's (1819-1905) four volume biography, The Life of Muhammad, was held up (and to some it still is!) as the principal English language authority on the life of the Arabian Prophet. Muir said, 'The sword of Mahomet and the Coran [Qur'án] are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty and truth which the world has yet known.'

While he probably was engaging in at least some level of hyperbole, are these claims really so controversial & untrue in the light of groups such as Islamic State, the anti-intellectual atmosphere that pervades Islamic theology, and the violent societal repression of non-Islamic religions inherent to so many Muslim countries? Come on, as a Bahai your own religion's early history should show you how true that is.

Dante is another case in point. He placed Muhammad and 'Ali (Muhammad's successor) in the ninth hell of the Inferno in his epic poem, The Divine Comedy.

Dante placed Muhammad in the eight circle of Hell, not the ninth. Look here and you'll see Muhammad is in Bolgia 9 of the eighth circle as a Sower of Discord.

Philip Hitti explains that the very earliest Western sketch of Muhammad by a ninth-century Greek writer portrayed Him 'as a false prophet and imposter'; He 'was later embellished with the bright colors of oversexuality, dissoluteness, bloodthirstiness, and brigandage. In clerical circles Muhammad became the antichrist. ...

So? In early medieval Europe you might be accused of being the anti-Christ if you sneezed and someone didn't say 'God bless you' (yes, that's hyperbole). The point I'm making is that 'Anti-Christ' was an accusation levelled with such astonishing readiness that it seems comparable to accusations of 'Islamophobia' today.

Western fablers used Maumet as one of forty-one variants of Muhammad's name listed in the Oxford English Dictionary in the sense of idol. It came to mean 'puppet' or 'doll.' In this sense Shakespeare used the word in Romeo and Juliet. Another variant of the same name Mahoun, was used in English medieval encyclical plays as an object of worship.'

Fortunately we have more reliable sources to search through and don't have to rely on names derived from... shudders involuntarily ... Shakespeare!

 

[Shad]

Baha'is believe that both Christ and Muhammad were sent by the same God.

That Muslims and Christians are both human beings. And that now is the time to try and creating understanding between these two great Faiths. We've had enough conflict for centuries. We want peace.

We believe we are all one human family and that no race or religion is superior to another and to promote understanding between peoples, races, religions and nations is the most important duty of every human being on this planet.

It is detrimental to the peace, well being and security of all people to exalt or degrade any race, religion, nation or people as this only leads to prejudice and disunity.

Noble goals but none of your post addresses my points.

 

[Shad]

While technically true, it really cannot be argued that he has achieved something of a demigod status in the eyes of the believers.

Paragon would be a better term

 

[YmirGF]

Paragon would be a better term

How about "is viewed as a paragon, at a minimum, and perilously close to a demigod, at the extreme".

 

[Hawkins]

• The earliest manuscript is the Birmingham manuscript, held in the University of Birmingham (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx) – this is carbon dated between 568 AD & 645 AD
  
• There are other very old manuscripts, e.g. Sana’a manuscript from before 671 AD

It's almost deceptive here. Qu'ran as a whole book is never verifiable. The parchment is just a small part of the whole book. So no one can tell if today's Qu'ran is the same book published 1500 years ago.

God's messages, if anything critical to humans, must be conveyed consistently throughout history.

OT Bible:
We have a whole library (Dead Sea Scrolls) with complete books for us to draw the conclusion that theologically the same contents remain in today's Bible.

We have an authorized earthly entity to maintain its consistency strictly to prevent any adding or removing of contents. The canonization of OT was serious done and maintained.

NT Bible:
We have 2 whole book artifacts (NIV stream of Bibles), and another independent source (KJV stream) for us to cross reference to draw the conclusion that the same theology is conveying today as it was some 2000 years ago.

We have another authorized earthly entity to maintain its consistency strictly to prevent any adding and removing or contents. The canonization of NT was serious done and maintained.

It's the work of a serious God for a serious message (of salvation) to convey.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Incorrect. I use Muslim sources such as this one and Quran verses such as:
2:216 "Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."
and 8:34 - 8:39 "
But why should Allah not punish them while they obstruct [people] from al-Masjid al- Haram and they were not [fit to be] its guardians? Its [true] guardians are not but the righteous, but most of them do not know.
And their prayer at the House was not except whistling and handclapping. So taste the punishment for what you disbelieved.
Indeed, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert [people] from the way of Allah . So they will spend it; then it will be for them a [source of] regret; then they will be overcome. And those who have disbelieved - unto Hell they will be gathered.
[This is] so that Allah may distinguish the wicked from the good and place the wicked some of them upon others and heap them all together and put them into Hell. It is those who are the losers.
Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] - then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do."

The latter quote in particular references the fact that the Quraysh blocked access to the Ka'aba for Muhammad's followers




Really? You know who Muhammad was? Have you met him in person; face-to-face? No? Didn't think so. If you know who Muhammad is because Muslim sources have told you then so do I; because Muslim sources told me. He was a warlord and religious fanatic who would stop at nothing to make sure his beliefs trumped everyone else's. Of course I harbour my own bias - it's called my side of the argument. Accusations of bias are more than a bit rich from someone who presupposes that Muhammad is perfect and is willing to ignore Muslim sources that show him as a conqueror with a lack of tolerance for others' beliefs.

There are two sources. Only the Quran is the Word of God and infallible. Sayings of Muhammad called Hadiths are unreliable and often written by Muhammad's enemies and there are many incorrect Hadiths.




Yes he does. Before Muhammad, Jesus was the saviour sent to redeem all of humankind. Muhammad relegates him to a mere prophet sent only to the Jews.

The Quran fully supports the Bible But not the interpretations of Christians. Two entirely different things, the Bible is the Word of God. Interpretations are just fallible opinions.



You're right but I understand that it's blind devotion to Bahai dogma that keeps you from seeing Muhammad as a warlord.

Which Baha'i lIterature or Book or reference are you referring to?


No, it isn't. If Muhammad is a perfect man and a holy prophet of God, why do you ignore his proclamation that he would be the last prophet before the Mahdi?

Propaganda?

• Muslim sources admit Muhammad raised armies and conquered cities.
• Muslim sources admit Muhammad converted cities to Islam under threat of military conquest.
• Muslim sources admit Muhammad married and had sex with a child.
• Muslims believe Muhammad as a moral exemplar that Muslims should try to emulate.

If it's propaganda, I'm not getting it from where you have assumed I'm getting it from.

Muhammad only defended Himself and prevented the genocide of His followers. The Quran forbids aggression Sura 2:190 revealed in Medina set the parameters for the entire Quranic Dispensation with regards to war. It clearly states not to attack first. Here are some English translations on this matter. Yes the Quran does state Muhammad is an example to humanity. Because He was sinless like Christ.


2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell


2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

N J Dawood


2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.


Marmaduke Pickthall

With the advent of the Internet and the Age of Information, we don't need to rely on that now.

Only the Word of God is free from error.

While he probably was engaging in at least some level of hyperbole, are these claims really so controversial & untrue in the light of groups such as Islamic State, the anti-intellectual atmosphere that pervades Islamic theology, and the violent societal repression of non-Islamic religions inherent to so many Muslim countries? Come on, as a Bahai your own religion's early history should show you how true that is.

Europe has had its wars and conflicts too. All that says is all humanity has a violent history. The Inquisition. The Holocaust. They were not Islamic. Two world wars were not Islamic either and millions were killed.

Dante placed Muhammad in the eight circle of Hell, not the ninth. Look here and you'll see Muhammad is in Bolgia 9 of the eighth circle as a Sower of Discord.

So? In early medieval Europe you might be accused of being the anti-Christ if you sneezed and someone didn't say 'God bless you' (yes, that's hyperbole). The point I'm making is that 'Anti-Christ' was an accusation levelled with such astonishing readiness that it seems comparable to accusations of 'Islamophobia' today.

Fortunately we have more reliable sources to search through and don't have to rely on names derived from... shudders involuntarily ... Shakespeare!

Yes the Quran and the Bible. Anything else falls under interpretation and tradition and is subject to error.

Only the Quran and Bible are free from error including Muhammad and Christ.

The information about Aisha is incorrect. It is based on one Hadith. The recorder could easily have made a typo stating 9 instead of 19 and there are no birth certificates to prove this allegation.

When the United Nations was formed a typo was made calling it the 'untied nations'.

I agree that the followers of both Faiths have made mistakes and committed atrocities. But Christ and Muhammad and the Bible and the Quran are perfect. That people have not obeyed Them is not the fault of either.

Both in the Bible and Quran interpretation of prophecies is forbidden.

Sura 39:69 says that another One will come after Muhammad

And the earth will shine with the light of its Lord (Allah, when He will come to judge among men) and the Book will be placed (open) and the Prophets and the witnesses will be brought forward, and it will be judged between them with truth, and they will not be wronged.

The Bible also speaks of a New Revelation from God

“The new things that are to be received and enjoyed hereafter are: a new name, the believer’s, Rev. 2:17; a new name, the Lord’s, Rev. 3:12; a new song, Rev. 5:9; a new Heaven and a new Earth, Rev. 21:1; the new Jerusalem, Rev. 3:12; 21:2; ‘And He that sitteth on the Throne said, Behold, I make all things new,’ Rev. 21:

Both the Quran and Bible are speaking about Baha'u'llah

 

[loverofhumanity]

Please accept my apologies. I still haven't mastered how to include answers with quotes but if you read above you will see my answers included.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are 2 billion Christians, so if you want to play the numbers game Islam is losing. The numbers game also fails within time and place context as Islam emerged as a minor religion compared to those that existed at the time. You point is nothing but an ad populum fallacy

I was just making the point that another 1.7 billion people also accept Christ because the Quran teaches He is from God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It would be helpful if you could get Muslims to come to some sort of consensus...

They need to get back to the basic foundation of Islam which is belief in Muhammad and the Quran. There are too many interpretations and sayings and scholars which have caused confusion and conflict among Muslims. They need to discard them completely.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes the Quran and the Bible. Anything else falls under interpretation and tradition and is subject to error.

No, just the Quran. I didn't quote any Biblical passages.

Only the Quran and Bible are free from error including Muhammad and Christ.

First off, both books contain errors. It doesn't matter how many times the Quran says it, a man's seed (and the liquid it is conveyed from the testes in) does not come from between the backbone and the ribs. The sun also does not set into a pool of muddy water. As for the Bible, the Moon is not a light (it reflects sunlight; does not make its own), God couldn't have made the Sun on the third day because a day relates to the amount of time the Sun travels across the sky as seen from Earth; no sun, no day. Also, snakes don't talk, and why test someone's ability to distinguish right from wrong before giving them the knowledge of what is right and wrong?

Secondly, the Quran and the Bible are at complete odds concerning Jesus' status. His messianic status is the bulwark of Christianity and the Bible makes it plain that Jesus is the Saviour of humankind. The Quran relegates him to the status of a prophet sent by Allah to the Jews. He was either just a prophet for the Jews or he was a Saviour for all of us (or he was neither; to avoid accusations of false dichotomy). Both books cannot be right.

The information about Aisha is incorrect. It is based on one Hadith. The recorder could easily have made a typo stating 9 instead of 19 and there are no birth certificates to prove this allegation.

The information on Aisha is incorrect because the recorder could have made a 'typo'? I'm going to assume that makes sense on some level. And no, you are incorrect. Islamic theology is quite comfortable with Aisha being aged nine. Plenty of Muhammad's apologists complain that criticism of his child marriage is unfounded since 'everyone else was doing it'. You're just dismissing that part of him because it offends your modern sensibilities and because it clashes with your preconceived decision that Muhammad must be perfect.

I agree that the followers of both Faiths have made mistakes and committed atrocities. But Christ and Muhammad and the Bible and the Quran are perfect. That people have not obeyed Them is not the fault of either.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. Muhammad included verses in the Quran which actively encouraged his followers to take up arms e.g. "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it..." etc

Both in the Bible and Quran interpretation of prophecies is forbidden.

Oh boy, there are going to be some Muslims rather upset about this. Not that they're doing something forbidden; but that you are interpreting their scripture for them and telling them how to act.

Sura 39:69 says that another One will come after Muhammad

And the earth will shine with the light of its Lord (Allah, when He will come to judge among men) and the Book will be placed (open) and the Prophets and the witnesses will be brought forward, and it will be judged between them with truth, and they will not be wronged.

That verse speaks of Judgement Day, not of a new prophet after Muhammad.

The Bible also speaks of a New Revelation from God

“The new things that are to be received and enjoyed hereafter are: a new name, the believer’s, Rev. 2:17; a new name, the Lord’s, Rev. 3:12; a new song, Rev. 5:9; a new Heaven and a new Earth, Rev. 21:1; the new Jerusalem, Rev. 3:12; 21:2; ‘And He that sitteth on the Throne said, Behold, I make all things new,’ Rev. 21:

You're offering a quote salad (not even quote-mining) as evidence that your prophet is valid? Pssh. Dismissed.

Both the Quran and Bible are speaking about Baha'u'llah

'No, they're talking about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.'
'They're actually talking about Joseph Smith.'
'They're clearly talking about Guru Nanak. It's so obvious.'

See? Anyone can do it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Please accept my apologies. I still haven't mastered how to include answers with quotes but if you read above you will see my answers included.

Do you mean you're not sure how to break each quote up into smaller pieces? All you do is put QUOTE in square brackets at the beginning of the part you wish to address (best to take a new line for it) and put /QUOTE in square brackets at the end when you're done. Be sure to use square brackets and block capitals for the quote blocks; that's important.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello all,

I'm in the process of looking at different belief systems, and I've tried to summarise why I am beginning to settle on belief in God & specifically Islam.

Getting some challenge from your sharp debating minds would be immensely helpful to highlight any shortcomings in my current thinking.

Context: The Qur’an is a book which is claimed to be from God, written mostly in the first person, and said to have been revealed between 609-632 AD orally via Muhammed. It is claimed that Muhammed had direct interactions with Gabriel throughout the revelation of the Qur’an.

Basic structure:

If the following conditions are true:

1. Muhammed brought the Qur’an
   
2. The Qur’an has not materially changed since the point of its arrival
   
3. Muhammed genuinely believed that the Qur’an was from God
   
4. The Qur’an, along with its effects on people, are beyond what can realistically be expected from the products of someone with mental illness

Then: There is almost certainly a genuine supernatural nature to the core text of Islam that is available to us today



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. Muhammed brought the Qur’an

• There are many thousands of records called ‘Hadith’ that make reference to the Prophet Muhammed & his life, including Qur’anic revelation
  
• There are some corroborating records in contemporary times from non-Arab sources that mention Muhammed & the Qur’an
  
• There are no contemporary sources that even suggest Mohammed didn’t exist or didn’t bring the Qur’an

2. The Qur’an has not materially changed since the point of its arrival

• The earliest manuscript is the Birmingham manuscript, held in the University of Birmingham (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx) – this is carbon dated between 568 AD & 645 AD
  
• There are other very old manuscripts, e.g. Sana’a manuscript from before 671 AD
  
• None of the contents of these manuscripts varies in a material way from the modern Qur’an
  
• The official Islamic story of the Qur’an’s compilation is that it was revealed orally to Muhammed between 609-632 AD. It was then compiled into a book soon after his death, before which it was transmitted orally. The compilation into today’s standard edition took place in ~650 AD.
  
• Given the nomadic Arab oral tradition, it is very believable that the Qur’an would have remained mostly unchanged in the max. 10-20 year period before it was written down. To illustrate, even today, some nomadic Arabs are able to recite hours of poetry by heart

3. Muhammed genuinely believed that the Qur’an was from God
The potential motivations for Muhammed to recite the Qur’an to his people can be summarised in this tree:

An analysis of the factors mentioned in the above tree is as follows:

4. The Qur’an, along with its effects on people, are beyond what can realistically be expected from the products of someone with mental illness

• Schizophrenic patients or those with schizophrenic traits will often display ‘Knight’s move thinking’ – switching between ideas with little or no connection without warning. Those with schizotypal personality disorder also often exhibit unusual speech structures & unnatural shifts between ideas. On the other hand, the Qur’an is able to deliver coherent stories & makes a clear transition from one idea to the next
  
• Manic disorder/bipolar disorder is often characterised by hyperexcitable speech & flight of ideas. As explained above, the Qur’an is able to hold an idea/story & explain it, and there is a clear transition from one idea to the next. Furthermore, the tone of the Qur’an is consistent throughout, which indicates an absence of bipolar wild mood swings in the compilation of the Qur’an
  
• Muhammed claimed to interact directly with Gabriel when receiving Qur’anic revelations, including visual, auditory & physical contact. Schizophrenic hallucinations are usually only auditory, and usually have a negative connotation. In general, hallucinations are nowhere near as well developed as the experiences which Muhammed is claimed to have gone through.
  
• Epileptic hallucinations are even less likely to cause the combination of visual, auditory & physical contact with a person, especially not on a recurrent basis
  
• Furthermore, the Arabic Qur’an recitation demonstrates signs of having been written by someone with considerable intelligence. It has a certain rhythm which many find appealing, and a sense of authority which many find makes it easy to believe. These features are not easy to imitate. Most mental illnesses, including epilepsy, are correlated with a lower IQ, which makes it less likely that the Qur’an could have been produced by someone with a mental disorder

If you are trying to make an argument using logic, you are failing out of the gate. All of your premises start with the word "if", meaning that you yourself do not know if the premise is true or not.

Without serious substantiating evidence to support them, I reject all four of your initial premises.....therefore your argument fails for me. The remaining chart is superfluous. Do you have an argument with legs???

 

[loverofhumanity]

Do you mean you're not sure how to break each quote up into smaller pieces? All you do is put QUOTE in square brackets at the beginning of the part you wish to address (best to take a new line for it) and put /QUOTE in square brackets at the end when you're done. Be sure to use square brackets and block capitals for the quote blocks; that's important.

You do it very well. I apologise for my ignorance but I'll try to learn how to do it. Thanks for your advice.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, just the Quran. I didn't quote any Biblical passages.




First off, both books contain errors. It doesn't matter how many times the Quran says it, a man's seed (and the liquid it is conveyed from the testes in) does not come from between the backbone and the ribs. The sun also does not set into a pool of muddy water. As for the Bible, the Moon is not a light (it reflects sunlight; does not make its own), God couldn't have made the Sun on the third day because a day relates to the amount of time the Sun travels across the sky as seen from Earth; no sun, no day. Also, snakes don't talk, and why test someone's ability to distinguish right from wrong before giving them the knowledge of what is right and wrong?

Secondly, the Quran and the Bible are at complete odds concerning Jesus' status. His messianic status is the bulwark of Christianity and the Bible makes it plain that Jesus is the Saviour of humankind. The Quran relegates him to the status of a prophet sent by Allah to the Jews. He was either just a prophet for the Jews or he was a Saviour for all of us (or he was neither; to avoid accusations of false dichotomy). Both books cannot be right.




The information on Aisha is incorrect because the recorder could have made a 'typo'? I'm going to assume that makes sense on some level. And no, you are incorrect. Islamic theology is quite comfortable with Aisha being aged nine. Plenty of Muhammad's apologists complain that criticism of his child marriage is unfounded since 'everyone else was doing it'. You're just dismissing that part of him because it offends your modern sensibilities and because it clashes with your preconceived decision that Muhammad must be perfect.




Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. Muhammad included verses in the Quran which actively encouraged his followers to take up arms e.g. "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it..." etc




Oh boy, there are going to be some Muslims rather upset about this. Not that they're doing something forbidden; but that you are interpreting their scripture for them and telling them how to act.




That verse speaks of Judgement Day, not of a new prophet after Muhammad.




You're offering a quote salad (not even quote-mining) as evidence that your prophet is valid? Pssh. Dismissed.




'No, they're talking about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.'
'They're actually talking about Joseph Smith.'
'They're clearly talking about Guru Nanak. It's so obvious.'

See? Anyone can do it.

Firstly, the Quran is foremost a spiritual message from God to humanity and much of its language is referring to spiritual occurrences not physical. Here I quote from Bahaullah's matchless utterance in the Book of Certitude..

“By the terms “sun” and “moon,” mentioned in the writings of the Prophets of God, is not meant solely the sun and moon of the visible universe. “Nay rather, manifold are the meanings they have intended for these terms. In every instance they have attached to them a particular significance”. -Baha'u'llah

As to Jesus and how the Quran sees Him. There are many passages in the Bible referring to Jesus as a Prophet also. So the Quran is in no contradiction here. Here are some of them. Prophet, Christ as....Deuteronomy 18:18 Matthew 21:11 Matthew 21:46 Mark 6:15 Luke 7:16 Luke 13:33 Luke 24:19 John 4:19 John 6:14 John 7:40 John 9:17 Acts 3:22

The Quran is the Word of God and authority not Hadiths. I go with the Quran here over any Hadith as Hadiths can be wrong and in this case very wrong. Where a Hadith contradicts the Quran, the Quran is considered correct not the other way round.

The Quran says in Sura 33:21

You have an excellent example in the Messenger of God; for anyone who seeks God and the Last Day, and remembers God frequently.

As to war. The Quran only permits self defense.

Sura 2:190 clearly states Muslims are not to aggress and only defend if attacked first.

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

I am forbidden to interpret either the Quran or the Bible.

In that verse it says the Books would be open and in the Bible similar things are said that one day the meanings would be 'unsealed'.

We say Baha'u'llah is that Promised One Who has unsealed the meanings and refer to Him for the correct meanings of the Holy Books.

Baha'u'llah is the 'Face of God' in this age.


“O ye leaders of religion! Who is the man amongst you that can rival Me in vision or insight? Where is he to be found that dareth to claim to be My equal in utterance or wisdom? No, by My Lord, the All-Merciful! All on the earth shall pass away; and this is the face of your Lord, the Almighty, the Well-Beloved.”

Excerpt From: Bahá'u'lláh. “The Kitab-i-Aqdas.”

 

[loverofhumanity]

'No, they're talking about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.'
'They're actually talking about Joseph Smith.'
'They're clearly talking about Guru Nanak. It's so obvious.' See? Anyone can do it.

That's why I refer people to the Writings of Baha'u'llah. None of my words can possibly hope to do justice to Him. It took me many years of questioning and reading and researching before I became a Baha'i. It didn't happen overnight nor is it blind faith but faith based on investigation and knowledge.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Do you mean you're not sure how to break each quote up into smaller pieces? All you do is put QUOTE in square brackets at the beginning of the part you wish to address (best to take a new line for it) and put /QUOTE in square brackets at the end when you're done. Be sure to use square brackets and block capitals for the quote blocks; that's important.

Thanks very much for helping.

I finally, thanks to you, got one right!!

 

[Shad]

How about "is viewed as a paragon, at a minimum, and perilously close to a demigod, at the extreme".

Paragon bording or becoming idolization varying person to person.